Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRIGALIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 42322/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 3851/12

  ANTHONY AQUILINA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, §§ 58-59, 11 December 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04

  RYSOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  In this context, the Court reiterates the particular importance of the principle of good governance, which requires that where an issue pertaining to the general interest is at stake - especially when it affects fundamental human rights, including property rights - the public authorities must act promptly and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 120, ECHR 2000-I; Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, § 71, 20 October 2011; and Pyrantiene, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 34911/06

  DIGRYTE KLIBAVICIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  Even assuming that the applicant had paid a preferential price for the land in question, for the Court this fact is immaterial in terms of her rights of ownership (see Digryte Klibaviciene v. Lithuania, no. 34911/06, § 36, 21 October 2014).

 
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  The Court reiterates that it is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law (see, among many other authorities, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, §§ 58-59, 11 December 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  In line with the Court's case-law in similar cases concerning expropriation of property, the balance mentioned above is generally achieved where compensation paid to the person whose property has been taken reasonably relates to its "market" value as determined at the time of the expropriation (see Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 53, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vistins and Perepjolkins [GC], no. 71243, § 111, 25 October 2012).